4.4 Article

Ocean surface wind speed retrieval from C-band quad-polarized SAR measurements at optimal spatial resolution

Journal

REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 155-164

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/2150704X.2020.1846220

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC1504604]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41776181]
  3. Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LQ21D060001]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Satellite Ocean Environment Dynamics, Second Institute of Oceanography, MNR [QNHX2012]
  5. CSA climate change initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the impact of resampling spatial resolution (RSR) on the retrieval of ocean surface wind speed from SAR images, finding that better accuracy wind speeds can be obtained at somewhat coarser resolutions. The optimal RSR for different polarized channels were identified, with corresponding RMSE values indicating accuracy.
This work investigates the effect of the resampling spatial resolution (RSR) on the retrieval of ocean surface wind speed from satellite-borne Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images. For this purpose, 358 RADARSAT-2(RS-2) fine-beam quad-polarized SAR images and in-situ National Data Buoy Centre (NDBC) and China State Oceanic Administration (SOA) buoy measurements from selected geographic locations are used in this paper. In order to obtain better accuracy SAR-retrieved wind speeds, CMOD5.N function, Z2011 polarization ratio (PR) model and C2PO model constitute the best models for VV-, HH- and cross-polarized SAR images, respectively. The resulting statistical analysis suggests that better accuracy wind speeds can be retrieved at somewhat coarser resolutions. The optimal RSR for the VV-, HH-, VH- and HV-polarized channels are 850, 1050,1350 and 1450 m, respectively, with RMSEs of 1.74, 2.03, 1.61 and 1.83 m/s.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available